GFF vs. CLS
GFF (Griffon Corporation) and CLS (Celestica Inc.) are both stocks. GFF operates in Tools & Accessories (Industrials), while CLS operates in Electronic Components (Technology). Over the past 10 years, GFF returned 21.64%/yr vs 43.16%/yr for CLS. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
GFF vs. CLS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GFF achieves a 18.36% return, which is significantly lower than CLS's 30.75% return. Over the past 10 years, GFF has underperformed CLS with an annualized return of 21.64%, while CLS has yielded a comparatively higher 43.16% annualized return.
GFF
- 1D
- 1.44%
- 1M
- -1.22%
- YTD
- 18.36%
- 6M
- 19.35%
- 1Y
- 24.46%
- 3Y*
- 34.72%
- 5Y*
- 32.40%
- 10Y*
- 21.64%
CLS
- 1D
- 3.98%
- 1M
- 2.92%
- YTD
- 30.75%
- 6M
- 13.42%
- 1Y
- 220.14%
- 3Y*
- 209.55%
- 5Y*
- 114.81%
- 10Y*
- 43.16%
GFF vs. CLS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GFF Griffon Corporation | 18.36% | 4.42% | 17.97% | 83.96% | 36.91% | 41.60% | 1.83% | 97.74% | -44.92% | -21.43% |
CLS Celestica Inc. | 30.75% | 220.27% | 215.23% | 159.80% | 1.26% | 37.92% | -2.42% | -5.70% | -16.32% | -11.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between GFF and CLS is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 1998 | 0.32 |
The correlation between GFF and CLS shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (1 year) to 0.38 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
GFF:
$3.96B
CLS:
$44.72B
GFF:
$0.76
CLS:
$8.28
GFF:
114.80
CLS:
46.65
GFF:
1.49
CLS:
0.63
GFF:
1.70
CLS:
3.24
GFF:
41.96
CLS:
21.31
GFF:
$2.35B
CLS:
$13.81B
GFF:
$1.00B
CLS:
$1.60B
GFF:
$245.38M
CLS:
$1.32B
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
GFF vs. CLS — Risk / Return Rank
GFF
CLS
GFF vs. CLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Griffon Corporation (GFF) and Celestica Inc. (CLS). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
| GFF | CLS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.80 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.39 | -0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.88 | 7.58 | -6.70 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.31 | 18.88 | -16.57 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GFF | CLS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.69 | 3.06 | -2.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.79 | 2.01 | -1.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.48 | 0.87 | -0.39 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.04 | 0.27 | -0.23 |
Drawdowns
GFF vs. CLS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GFF drawdown since its inception was -96.84%, roughly equal to the maximum CLS drawdown of -96.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFF and CLS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GFF | CLS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -96.84% | -96.93% | +0.09% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.85% | -29.24% | +1.39% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.85% | -53.96% | +26.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -39.02% | -53.96% | +14.94% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -61.32% | -80.60% | +19.28% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.09% | -18.18% | +10.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -55.49% | -73.36% | +17.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.63% | 11.72% | -1.09% |
Volatility
GFF vs. CLS - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Griffon Corporation (GFF) is 11.15%, while Celestica Inc. (CLS) has a volatility of 26.60%. This indicates that GFF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GFF | CLS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.15% | 26.60% | -15.45% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.79% | 55.08% | -30.29% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 35.45% | 72.52% | -37.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 41.11% | 57.62% | -16.51% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 45.32% | 49.93% | -4.61% |
Dividends
GFF vs. CLS - Dividend Comparison
GFF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.97%, while CLS has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLS Celestica Inc. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GFF Griffon Corporation | 0.97% | 1.03% | 0.88% | 4.10% | 6.62% | 1.16% | 1.50% | 1.44% | 12.27% | 1.23% | 0.80% | 0.96% |
Financials
GFF vs. CLS - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Griffon Corporation and Celestica Inc.. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
GFF vs. CLS - Profitability Comparison
GFF - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Griffon Corporation reported a gross profit of 191.99M and revenue of 421.86M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 45.5%.
CLS - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported a gross profit of 437.20M and revenue of 4.05B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 10.8%.
GFF - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Griffon Corporation reported an operating income of 87.35M and revenue of 421.86M, resulting in an operating margin of 20.7%.
CLS - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported an operating income of 272.10M and revenue of 4.05B, resulting in an operating margin of 6.7%.
GFF - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Griffon Corporation reported a net income of 46.94M and revenue of 421.86M, resulting in a net margin of 11.1%.
CLS - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported a net income of 212.30M and revenue of 4.05B, resulting in a net margin of 5.3%.
Frequently Asked Questions
GFF and CLS have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CLS has higher volatility (26.60%) compared to GFF (11.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GFF dropped -96.84% vs CLS's -96.93%.
CLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 0.69), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for GFF and CLS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer